I think what you described is what they already have with the "including results for [similar wording]" version of the results page. They also have a link to see the exact results.
However, as of right now they only offer it for actual typos/spelling mistakes (like your example with the missing space) as opposed to semantically similar wordings.
This sounds 1) very cool, but 2) also a monster risk for spreading COVID and other diseases (literally pairing people up for close contact in as many combinations as possible).
I think it's because you are going to cross through New Mexico or Utah first (unless we represent "you" as a point, line, or other zero-width object, and have it traverse a 45° line through the infinitely small point of intersection of the four states—which I'd say would be a kind of generous model for any path that happens in real life).
At first I thought this was going to be fantasy or some kind of conceptual piece and the front page photo was faked with Photoshop or something like DALL-E 2 with a prompt like sad minotaur girl lies in street in Italy while tourists watch, photorealistic. Looks like it's actually from some kind of (very well-done) street performance art piece.
Starting to feel what it's like to be living in the era where thinking a photo is real isn't a pretty safe default assumption.
It sounds like they're raking in a lot from this, so you'd kinda think they'd be best off actually giving away a car like, once every 5 years. To literally never give out the thing they're advertising seems like playing with fire. (The actual supposed big prize—after you jump through a lot of other hoops—is $100k, but same deal.)
This might be a case where people genetically taste things differently, because pistachio ice cream wasn't an acquired taste for me at all. Just seems delicious, though maybe a hair off the map of the kind of taste you usually get in ice cream.
Seems like this could create a group of kids who were formerly driven to school and live out of schoolbus range, but their parents go to work too early to be able to drive them now.
I wonder if there are provisions for this in the new plan (e.g., the school opens early for kids to just hang around if they still need to be dropped off early).
> In case you were interested, there's a section devoted to that in RFC 3548: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3548#section-4 with the tl;dr of `s/[+]/-/; s/[/]/_/` and then omitting the trailing "=" characters and just padding the incoming b64 since (AFAIK) one can add as many "=" as they'd like and it'll just ignore extra ones
Just to add one thing: in case Justin isn't familiar, "s/original_thing/replacement_thing" is a figure of speech often used in the hacker subculture to mean "replace original_thing with replacement_thing." It comes from some languages and editors like Perl and Vim/vi, where that syntax (and variations) are used for search and replace.
I think Trello and Atlassian went well (massively different scale, though). I think the rep is that Atlassian mainly does well by leaving the companies alone as independent organizations, more like investment positions rather than actually merging the tech.
One of the definitive examples has to be Radiohead's How to Disappear Completely [1]. 2 or 3 great frisson moments in there. The big one is toward the end, when the strings decay and smudge into atonal textures (very very heavily influenced by the 20th-century composer Penderecki) and then suddenly come back into focus as the song climaxes.
It's just so incredibly well-done that I feel like even people who only listen to classical and jazz, or whatever, would have to acknowledge they really landed something there.
A lot of this is way over my head both mathematically and philosophically, but could we get away with saying that the reals exist in some slightly weaker sense, more like how a function exists?
I.e., reals are number-like entities that are actually described via a mathematical expressions, but can successfully be used in expressions as if they were numbers.
In this account, while a real can be used in the place of numbers in mathematical expressions, it's really more of a placeholder for a function that provides the operation (or for an expression nested inside the larger one; take your pick).
As a loose programming analogy, think of how in some languages you can use a generator in the exact same way as an array (at least for iteration), even though the array is a static value and the generator is actually backed by a function with dynamic behavior. Also think of Haskell with its lazy data structures that are represented the same as "actual" values (e.g., infinite arrays)
The author sort of covers this here:
> In particular, it seems intuitive that there are countably many descriptions of numbers (assuming that descriptions are finite-length strings of some finite language). And the real numbers are uncountable, so accepting the existence of the reals means that there are numbers that exist but can never be described. And this feels deeply unsettling to me: if we can never interact with these numbers even conceptually, it would be impossible to distinguish between two universes where in one they exist and in the other they don’t. Which to me makes their existence feel tenuous at best.
So that's a good objection. But what if we weaken the claim and say that only the "describable" reals actually exist, and for the rest, we can talk about them in principle but they actually don't have corresponding objects? This would divide reals into two categories: function-esque ones that we can describe, and "hypothetical" reals that can't be successfully represented using any formal syntax. Just as how in a programming language with generators, you have a countably infinite number of valid generators and an uncountably infinite number of generators you could dream up that fail to produce values in some way (e.g. bad syntax, perform illegal operations like div-by-0, or even just a generator someone came up with in a fever dream that isn't representable in symbols at all).
I think what they're saying is that by making devs use a less familiar language, you're going to end up with at least as many security bugs, just ones not related to memory safety. (Not weighing in either way, just clarifying.)
Is the idea that the product (once it's caught up) will be as good or better (and/or at least reach more people) than the original? Or is he OK with people being worse off than if your company never existed and the better product got to take the lead?
The author of this blog, Scott Alexander, has an online novel called Unsong [1] based on this idea. In the book's universe, Kaballah is real and (among many other wild things) corporations automatically generate long lists of Hebrew characters to find names of God that give various powers.
> Whenever I come across something I don't understand, I will try to figure it out. If it seems utterly weird, that's even more motivation to figure it out! I really can't imagine this mode of thought where you read something, do not immediately grasp it, and then feel that somehow it's wrong/bad/obscurantist. Like, how do you learn anything at all?
It's a matter of the tone, and also the fact that when I do read carefully and figure out what they're saying, I often think "wow, I could have put that in much simpler terms with no loss of information."
I don't feel this way about literally any other topic besides modern literary criticism (and stuff in that family like modern continental philosophy). Even analytic philosophy looking at similar topics doesn't normally feel willfully opaque in the same way, and I'm happy to dig in and learn the more difficult aspects of what they're saying.
Do you think this is due to being prejudiced about this exact area and nothing else?
However, as of right now they only offer it for actual typos/spelling mistakes (like your example with the missing space) as opposed to semantically similar wordings.